Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: 9.584640

Title: RE: 9.584640

I really liked the proposal that Kevin Daines put on the overhead.  One of the reasons that I liked the proposal is that it matched what I pictured in my mind. :-)  But there were other technical reasons why I liked it.  The proposal for those that missed it was to leave the MAC/PLS data rate at 10.0 Gb/s, but to have the PHYs determine what data rate was required.  In the case of a LAN PHY, the data rate would be 10.0 Gb/s... a direct match to the MAC/PLS data rate.  In the case of a WAN (or OC-192) PHY, the data rate would be 9.58464 Gb/s and the PHY would obtain that data rate by either some form of flow control or buffering scheme.

I like this because it allows the LAN architectures to remain cost effective while offering the ability to easily concentrate links (i.e. ten 1 GbE links map nicely into one 10 GbE link).  This architecture puts a bit of a cost burden on the WAN PHY, but I think that this still results in a cost effective solution for OC-192.  The WAN solution may not be as low cost as the LAN solution, but show me a Gb/s WAN solution today that is as cost effective as a Gb/s LAN solution.

The other part that I like is that the only real difference between the WAN and LAN solutions in Kevin's proposal is the PHY.  Everything above the PHY (including interface to PHY) remains relatively unchanged.  Yes, it's all going much faster, but that's an implementation issue, not a standards issue.  At least that's my impression. :-)

Just my 2 cents worth,

Brad Booth
Level One Communications, Austin Design Center
(512) 407-2135 work
(512) 589-4438 cell